Agency Regulation After West Virginia v. EPA: Climate Change, Major Questions Doctrine, Future of Chevron

Description

In West Virginia v. EPA, the Supreme Court struck down the never-executed centerpiece of the Obama administration's climate policy: the Clean Power Plan, a set of rules governing fossil-fuel-fired electric generators. Just as importantly, Chief Justice John Roberts, writing for a 6-3 majority, announced in no uncertain terms that the basis for the Court's decision was the "major questions doctrine," a phrase no Supreme Court majority had previously invoked explicitly.

The major questions doctrine comes from a number of decisions from the Roberts Court that all address executive agencies asserting highly consequential power "beyond what Congress could reasonably be understood to have granted." Rather than treating such assertions of power as normal statutory interpretations, in which judges are highly deferential to agency choices, courts are to approach extraordinary, novel actions with far-reaching consequences with a greater degree of skepticism. If Congress wishes to effect a sweeping overhaul of the nation's economic activity, it must do so quite explicitly--with a "clear congressional authorization."

This new doctrine may be on the verge of overturning the long-standing Chevron doctrine which states when a legislative delegation to an administrative agency on a particular issue or question is not explicit but implicit, a court may not substitute its own interpretation of the statute for a reasonable interpretation made by the administrative agency. This will have a major impact on not only regulations implemented by the EPA, but also on other executive agencies and the future of climate change regulation.

Listen as our authoritative panel discusses the long-term implications of West Virginia v. EPA and how the major questions doctrine may revolutionize the administrative state.